M8/9 users going X1 or vice versa?

[NZDavid]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I wouldn't give up an M for the X1. I like the concept of the M9 but it's just too pricey at this stage. And the M6 film camera keeps on producing lovely images. X1 produces nice images, too, and low light performance is excellent, but for me, AF is a drawback. I guess I am just more used to RF. I also find it more accurate. As always, YMMV.

[phancj]

I wouldn't give up an M for the X1. I like the concept of the M9 but it's just too pricey at this stage. And the M6 film camera keeps on producing lovely images. X1 produces nice images, too, and low light performance is excellent, but for me, AF is a drawback. I guess I am just more used to RF. I also find it more accurate. As always, YMMV.

 

Hey David do you scan the films so you can do PP too? Thought of buying an M7 given that film cams do not go obsolete?

[Julian Thompson]

I use X1, M9 and M7 and each has its place - it's a fascinating combination and I highly recommend it.

 

I still have to fight a weird feeling of looking for 'one ultimate camera' but I have come to terms with the fact that no tool is universal. It's only like coming to terms with the fact that you use a long travel mountain bike for a rocky descent and a simple tough cheaper bike to commute to work on - yes, you'd like to have only one perfect bike but it can't be done.

 

In terms of everything else I guess I can give X1 no higher compliment than to say that during my editing the pictures I get from it are of equally high quality as the M9.

 

One thing to say with X1 is - 'learn to use manual focus' - it really transforms the camera into a fast machine and because of the cropped wide angle lens the dof is fairly forgiving. I use it probably 50% of the time - I am not sure I'd have got the shot below even with M9/7 to be honest.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[stephen.w]

I agree with Julian.

 

Taken in Vienna last Wednesday with the camera manually focussed.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[phancj]

I use X1, M9 and M7 and each has its place - it's a fascinating combination and I highly recommend it.

 

I still have to fight a weird feeling of looking for 'one ultimate camera' but I have come to terms with the fact that no tool is universal. It's only like coming to terms with the fact that you use a long travel mountain bike for a rocky descent and a simple tough cheaper bike to commute to work on - yes, you'd like to have only one perfect bike but it can't be done.

 

In terms of everything else I guess I can give X1 no higher compliment than to say that during my editing the pictures I get from it are of equally high quality as the M9.

 

One thing to say with X1 is - 'learn to use manual focus' - it really transforms the camera into a fast machine and because of the cropped wide angle lens the dof is fairly forgiving. I use it probably 50% of the time - I am not sure I'd have got the shot below even with M9/7 to be honest.

 

 

Any tips for MF? do you judge and estimate the distance? Havent tried MF much save for few occasions.

[hg2303]

I would love to have a M9 to complement my X1.

[sblitz]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Here is my essential problem with spending the money on an M9 vs X1 -- and i have been long debating which to purchase and have tried out both. A lot of posters on this forum write about still using older Leica's, heck my Dad still uses his iiif on occasion. Do any of you think that in 50 years (survival issues aside) we will still be using the M9? For that matter how about in two years or five? Assuming the camera holds up physically, technology will far surpass it And yes, in this day and age you have to buy at some point knowing that there will be better soon enough but there photos to be taken today. And that is the point exactly. The pricing of the M9 reflects the classic long-lived aspect of a Leica body. But what was true for film cameras is not so for digital. Let us not get pulled into believing the M9 is a long-term, life time camera. It isn't. An M2 was, an M7 was, the lenses are. With the veil of classic longevity falling from one's eyes, isn't the M9 too much money for great technology today but not tomorrow? Perhaps this is why Leica didn't produce an X1 with an interchangable lens. They know the camera body, all digital camera bodies of all makes, will be disposed of within a few short years, but not the lens. A lot more people, I believe, would buy an X1 with an interchangable lens knowing full well that in this day and age, digital camera bodies are ultimately disposable.So why pay such a hefty premium for an M9 -- it is not a lifetime purchase.

[hteasley]

So why pay such a hefty premium for an M9 -- it is not a lifetime purchase.

 

I would question that assumption. While the tech world is full of statements like "640k RAM is enough for anyone," I do think that, when you can easily print 20"x30" from a digital image, you have hit the realm of "good enough, period". By that light, there's no reason for an M9 to lose significant luster. 50 years, that's a long time: who knows what things will be like, so yeah, perhaps its inability to upload images via the coaxial cable inserted into my eye, as compared to the M14, will make it a joke of camera. But I tend to doubt it. As long as there are parts for it and it can be kept running, I see no reason why the M9 has to go into the dustbin of camera history so easily.

 

Wish I could afford one...

[clair-obscur]

@ sblitz, You did very well clarified the big difference between analog and digital Leica RF. The analog mechanical Leica's are made for eternity, while DFR's probably about a few years, not only "digital" outdated are, but probably also exhibit problems with the sensor. Given the price of an M9, totally irresponsible.

[NZDavid]

Or, to put it even more simply, film cameras (M3-7) are a mature technology and already perfect for their purpose; digital cameras (M8-9) are still evolving -- very good indeed but not yet perfected.

 

Phancj, Yes, like many, I scan film from the M6 (mostly slide film), so I get the best of both worlds.

[Guest badbob]

Do any of you think that in 50 years (survival issues aside) we will still be using the M9?

 

In 50 years there would be several worries. Some of the electronics would need replacing. For example the SD card. Even the MicroSD with an SD adapter is iffy after 50 years. And the way capacities are increasing, you would have extreme difficulty finding a 32 gb or smaller flash memory card after 50 years. Making physical repair parts for old cameras isn't difficult for people with the proper tools, but making things like flash memory 50 years from now will likely be beyond even the best tool-using hobbyists.

[prk60091]

Here is my essential problem with spending the money on an M9 vs X1 -- and i have been long debating which to purchase and have tried out both. A lot of posters on this forum write about still using older Leica's, heck my Dad still uses his iiif on occasion. Do any of you think that in 50 years (survival issues aside) we will still be using the M9? For that matter how about in two years or five? Assuming the camera holds up physically, technology will far surpass it And yes, in this day and age you have to buy at some point knowing that there will be better soon enough but there photos to be taken today. And that is the point exactly. The pricing of the M9 reflects the classic long-lived aspect of a Leica body. But what was true for film cameras is not so for digital. Let us not get pulled into believing the M9 is a long-term, life time camera. It isn't. An M2 was, an M7 was, the lenses are. With the veil of classic longevity falling from one's eyes, isn't the M9 too much money for great technology today but not tomorrow? Perhaps this is why Leica didn't produce an X1 with an interchangable lens. They know the camera body, all digital camera bodies of all makes, will be disposed of within a few short years, but not the lens. A lot more people, I believe, would buy an X1 with an interchangable lens knowing full well that in this day and age, digital camera bodies are ultimately disposable.So why pay such a hefty premium for an M9 -- it is not a lifetime purchase.

 

playing devils advocate, the digilux 2 is still around and there is a lively group of users and is still making great photos and it's "technology has been far surpassed" by even the d-lux4. They are still fetching fair money on the used market.....

 

in the analog days the glass was the most important thing- you could change your film every 24/36 exposures and therefore change the look of your photos.....

 

in the digital days glass is still of prime importance- the sensor (your film) is of great importance- that will never change.

 

in my opinion- the best glass for the price you can afford... for me the best glass i can afford is the x1

[sblitz]

in essence you agree with my point, coming at it from the film/sensor replacement angle. regardless of whether you can or cannot afford an m9 plus lens (assuming you start from scratch), the sensor is the film and in a perfect world the digital body would be priced to reflect its engineering and impermanence rather than like an analog machine that is never truly outdated. this is where i believe the m9 is mispriced. in fact, leica's pricing of the m9 effectively pushes into the corner of not being too quick to release better versions lest they destroy the pricing model they have -- people paying up to buy a classic machine that can be handed down to the grandchildren. better for leica to lower the price of the body and raise the price of the lens, and broaden the lenses that are available.

[Scola77]

I purchased an M9 about a month ago in search of the perfect camera. I loved it, but I just found myself making excuses for missing so many shots, not to mention buyers remorse for spending so much on something I couldn't use for every scenario possible. Great camera, incredible shots - but for someone who is not a professional and can't dedicate lots of time to mastering it, I just had to sell it while I had the chance. All-in-all I came out ok and lost very little in resale.

 

After much research, I decided I would go with an X1 (it arrives this week). Being a long time Nikon guy, I really hated going back after my brief affair with a Leica. I felt by purchasing and X1 I can replace my P&S camera and give my d5000 a formidable challenge for all things except sports. If I must nitpick, I am a little bummed about the Elmarit f/2.8 lens. Maybe it won't be that big of a deal once I start using it, but was hoping for something closer to 2.0 - maybe even lower. Hey, a guy can dream right?

[sblitz]

the 2.8 vs 2.0 has you thinking in film mode -- think of sensor as film which allows you to keep f/stop and speed constant and let the iso vary to wherever. here is why these ridiculously high iso numbers in digitals become important. btwn 2 vs 2.8, even with the crop factor making these f/stops higher, you will still get a beautiful picture with enough of a blurred background to make for a 3d photo. again, it is all about the lens. if the x1 had interchangeable lens it would be an m8.2. sorry to hear about giving up the m9. i grew up totally manual, never even had an af or ae film camera and i got great shots of my kids, no problem.

[jsrockit]

if the x1 had interchangeable lens it would be an m8.2.

 

Huh? The sensors produce totally different looks.

[RichardM8]

This seems to be a returning theme. A lot of people seem to want/wish that the X1 was an M with a 35 Cron.

 

That is missing the point of the X1 entirely imo. That can't be made for $2000. A price that the X1 gets slagged for as it is....

[RichardM8]

And as M8 prices have probably bottomed, a M8 plus lenses might hold their values better than a X1.

 

It probably will. But in my wallet a 30% write-off from $2.000 is a heck of a lot less than 15% from say $12.000... :-)

[Sailronin]

I wouldn't trade my M8 for a brand new X1...it's a very expensive point and shoot while the M8 is a system. And after five or six years of "digital rot" the M glass will still be worth something, chances are the X1 will have very low residual value (as is true with all digital cameras).

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[prk60091]

I wouldn't trade my M8 for a brand new X1...it's a very expensive point and shoot while the M8 is a system. And after five or six years of "digital rot" the M glass will still be worth something, chances are the X1 will have very low residual value (as is true with all digital cameras).

 

I sold my dlux4 for just under 600usd having paid about 700 usd 2 years later. Previously I sold a d2 for about 1/2 my cost approximately 3 years after I bought it (long after it became 'technologically obsolete".

 

Leica cameras are the exception when it comes to the value of used digital cameras, and that's because of the glass.

 

The x1 will retain it's value for many years to come.